What I see is that you are trying to justify your ignorance, actually. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is what I see.
The point the article made was that the phrase 'survival of the fittest' is nonsensical and contains no information. "Fittest" is defined in evolutionary biology as those leaving the most offspring. It actually has nothing to do with how well any individual is suited to an environment. It has to do with reproduction and only reproduction. Since, to reproduce at all, you have to survive, the term 'survival of the fittest' is silly. That was the point the 'student' above was trying to drive home. "Survival of the fittest" is a meaningless phrase.
Darwin did not use that idea in defense of his ideas on evolution. He backed up to natural selection. I am quite sure you have not read Darwin, either.
You did not look at the material on the eye, did you? The vast majority of the eye's make-up has nothing to do with color. Only the cone cells deal with that. http://science.howstuffworks.com/eye3.htm
In the meantime you need a cornea, lens, retina, nerve, blood supply, muscles, and an awful lot more for even a simple eye.
Dogs have all of that.
So does the octopus.
Interestingly, the trilobite, which is the index fossil for the Cambrian strata, had compound eyes of a very complex nature. My evolution worked fast!
If you are willing to do a little thinking on your own about eye 'evolution', try this from an expert in the subject:
http://www.godslinks.com/eye.html
Another problem with eye evolution is that Darwinists must figure how it happened independently about forty different times. The eye -- a functioning eye -- is extremely complex, yet
Even more mysterious is the convergent evolution of similar structures in organisms otherwise extremely different. The eyes of vertebrates, for example, have many features in common with the eyes of cephalopods, such as the octopus, including the lens, retina, and musculature. Darwinists believe that the eye evolved independently at least 40 times in the animal kingdom. Wings allegedly evolved independently no less than 4 times: in insects, flying reptiles, birds, and bats. The whale, dolphin, extinct ichthyosaurus of the Mesozoic, and shark all look similar. Yet the shark is a fish, the ichthyosaurus was an aquatic reptile, and the whale and dolphin are mammals. Even so bizarre a feature as saber-length fangs appeared 4 times over in 4 different lineages.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/evod2.htm
As far as wings go, that space shuttle had to be flying by some means before those little 'wings' had any use at all as a guidance. And I am quite sure you are not claiming that transitional forms could fly before they had wings! As far as flying squirrels are concerned, they don't fly; they glide. And they glide because of skin membranes between front and rear legs. This is not even vaguely related to wings.
Javaro, quit making excuses for your ignorance. Take a little time off and do some research at least on the net about what you are fighting about. You are only making yourself look awfully silly.